A Florida court has reversed a $20 million judgment against an insurance company in a wrongful death case involving an elderly man. The case centers around the death of Henry Walton Bishop Jr., who died after wandering away from an assisted living facility. The ruling affects the Estate of Bishop and the insurance provider, National Assisted Living Risk Retention Group (NALRRG).
The case began when Bishop, an 87-year-old man, was placed in an assisted living facility owned by J&S Assisted Living & Consultant LLC (J&S) after being declared a vulnerable adult. In July 2012, Bishop left the facility unsupervised and was struck by a logging truck, resulting in his death. Following his death, the Estate of Bishop filed a wrongful death lawsuit against J&S, which led to a $20 million judgment against the assisted living facility.
After the judgment, the Estate sought to collect the damages from NALRRG, claiming that the insurance company had breached its contract by denying coverage for the wrongful death claim. NALRRG argued that J&S had never made a claim under the insurance policy in question. The case eventually made its way to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, where the court ruled on the matter.
The court's ruling stated that NALRRG did not breach its contract with J&S. The judges concluded that the trial court had erred in finding that a claim had been made under the 2012 insurance policy. The judges noted, "The Estate’s ability to collect under the insurance policy is constrained by J&S’s failure to timely renew its policy and therefore maintain continuous coverage." The ruling was made by Judge Rowe, with Chief Judge Osterhaus and Judge Nordby concurring.
The court found that the insurance policy in question was a claims-made policy, meaning that coverage applies only to claims made during the policy period. Since the wrongful death lawsuit was filed in 2014, long after the 2012 policy had expired, the court determined that J&S had not made a valid claim under the policy.
This ruling has significant implications for the Estate of Bishop and J&S, as it means that the Estate will not be able to collect the $20 million judgment from NALRRG. The court's decision reinforces the importance of timely reporting claims and maintaining continuous insurance coverage.
The ruling also clarifies the legal definitions surrounding insurance claims, particularly in wrongful death cases. It emphasizes that simply notifying an insurance agent of an incident does not constitute a formal claim under a policy. The court's decision may set a precedent for future cases involving claims-made insurance policies.
Going forward, the Estate of Bishop may explore other legal options, but the court's ruling limits their ability to collect damages from NALRRG. The case highlights the complexities of insurance coverage in wrongful death cases and the importance of understanding policy terms.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the Estate plans to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending.